Do you think it's time for public a court action?

What I'm talking about is a court action by any private citizen to attempt to compel the City of Hamilton to duly consider all sites that have been proposed by the Tiger-Cats, but have been largely ignored and summarily dismissed by the City.

court action??? what ???

be serious now ....

All a Court Action will do is push the games out of Hamilton Quicker.
Hesco will not allow the games to help held up any longer.
a Court action will kill any effort to Bring it to Hamilton at all

My apologies for a somewhat dyslexic thread question :oops:

(obviously, the "a" and "public" should be switched up)

On the other hand, since Bob Young has re-iterated today that his position has not varied, a court action may force another city council vote and I believe that in a week or so, more councilors will flip.......

deerhunter, no need, pretty sure if HOSTCO goes against what most are thinking and gives the go ahead, there are group(s) just sitting waiting, legal papers in hand! Mr. Turkstra and his neighbourhood organization have said all along they would oppose it.

I'm wondering on what grounds would you bring up a court action ?

I think any Judge will throw this out Waist of the Courts Time
I hope I am wrong

RYCK, i might be incorrect, but I think the neighbourhood org. would be looking at some type of OMB hearing on clains that the stadium is inappropriate use for the area, neighbourhood disruption, that type of thing. The sort of action, that if nothing else, has the possibily of slowing things down greatly, giving HOSTCO more to think about. Pretty much the way most things go in this neck of the woods and why things take so long to get done.

Throw what out?......there hasn't been anything filed yet so what do you base this on ? :roll:

(just because you say so ?....... :lol: :lol: :lol: )

I just get the Felling that this is a hot Potato that know one what's too touch to 1000 ft Poll.
so not matter what is filed they'll throw it out

I think any Judge will throw this out Waist of the Courts Time I hope I am wrong
Throw what out?......there hasn't been anything filed yet so what do you base this on ? :roll:

(just because you say so ?....... :lol: :lol: :lol: )

I just get the Felling that this is a hot Potato that know one what's too touch to 1000 ft Poll. so not matter what is filed they'll throw it out
Good grief "Onknight"........courts don't work like that.........they can't, so where do you read this stuff?

Anyone can file anything and it has to go through due process ............and after a hearing, then a judge decides on the merits.....but not before

Basically, the legal argument would be that incredibly serious allegations, of what amounts to municipal corruption, (by definition) has been leveled against Mayor Eisenberger by Councilor Brad Clark (former MPP and Cabinet Minister) . It involves law breaking of the Municipal Act and untoward influence and pressure in the process of evaluation of potential stadium site........

The legal remedy to explore this in the public's interest in a procedure called "Mandamus"........which means, "We Command"

[b][i]"Councillor Brad Clark is accusing the mayor of violating of the municipal act as well as stacking the deck to ensure the west harbour stadium location is approved by next week’s deadline.

Clark said the mayor set up an advisory committee made up of eight elected officials who have been meeting regularly to receive information on the stadium as well as meeting with Tiger Cats officials and Pan Am facilitator Michael Fenn.

Clark was asked to sit on the advisory committee, but refused, saying all members of council should be involved in discussions about the stadium.

“This advisory committee is a deliberate attempt by the mayor to avoid public scrutiny, and I find it contemptible,? said Clark. “I believe this is a clear violation of the municipal act. We should be looking for ways to abide by the municipal act, not finding ways around it.?[/u][/b][/i]

Another factor that would be presented to a judge is the apparant sober second thoughts of a few councilors in the recent ratification meeting..........indeed, the vote changed to 10-6 all of a sudden and questions have to be raised as to how many more now want to change their vote.......

Council drifting from west harbour?

[b][i]August 12, 2010
Council support is drifting away from west harbour.

At this morning’s council meeting, Tom Jackson announced he can no longer support west harbour and is reversing his position.

“My constituents have spoken in volumes that something is wrong with the city’s choice of the west harbour site without the TiCats,? he said.

Councillor Terry Whitehead also spoke against the city’s choice.

“I certainly have a real challenge in supporting something that will inevitably end up with a divided community, no stadium, and no Tiger Cats.?

Along with the three councillors who voted against west harbour Tuesday night,that makes for five votes against the site.

Council is in the process of ratifying their 12-3 vote for the west harbour.[/i][/b]

The legal remedy to explore this in the public's interest in a procedure called "Mandamus"........which means, "We Command" ...........and is used with great success quite often in Canada to compel public officials to do do their fiduciary duty when they fail to do so.

Below are a few things I found on-line which explains what a Writ Of Mandamus is:
[i]A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".[1]
Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.
Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

Legal requirements
The applicant pleading for the writ of mandamus to be enforced should be able to show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or refrain from doing the specific act. The duty sought to be enforced must have two qualities:[3] It must be a duty of public nature and the duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.
The purpose of mandamus is to remedy defects of justice. It lies in the cases where there is a specific right but no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right. It also lies in cases where there is an alternative remedy but the mode of redress is less convenient, less beneficial or less effectual.[citation needed] Generally, it is not available in anticipation of any injury except when the petitioner is likely to be affected by an official act in contravention of a statutory duty or where an illegal or unconstitutional order is made. The grant of mandamus is therefore an equitable remedy; a matter for the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is governed by well-settled principles.[4]
Mandamus, being a discretionary remedy, the application for that must be made in good faith and not for indirect purposes. Acquiescence cannot, however, bar the issue of mandamus. The petitioner must, of course, satisfy the Court that he has the legal right to the performance of the legal duty as distinct from mere discretion of authority.[5] A mandamus is normally issued when an officer or an authority by compulsion of statute is required to perform a duty and which despite demand in writing has not been performed. In no other case will a writ of mandamus issue unless it be to quash an illegal order.

Now, clearly, a lawful filing in Superior Court would be much more detailed and contain a whole bunch of legal stuff, but I believe given the huge issues of public interest and ramifications in this and the insinuations and suspicions by Councilor Clark and others, a judicial body couldn't ignore a filing and would have to give it a proper hearing.

I guess Right now anything is worth a Shot but who would file this ?

Any member of the public can file for a Writ of Mandamus in court when it comes to a public issue involving public servants.

Will I support this and hope my Fears are unfounded.
GL to anyone who tries this .

Yes, but as the mice said, " Who will bell the cat?"

Somebody has to step forward and start the ball rolling.

Could it be like a "class action suit"?

No time for a Class Action because they take forever to establish the class, damages, issues and scope.........besides, all this would take is one person.........

And as far as HOSTCO or the Government awarding the stadium to another community if there is a court action launched, there are safeguards against that also.......

The are called interlocutory injunctions.........they are basically an injunction issued during a trial to maintain the status quo or preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the trial is over.

That would be one of the many requests to make sure the public interest is served and protected.

An expedited hearing would also be requested to speed things up.

Hmmmm... The mandamus idea seems to have a very high burden of evidentiary proof that would have to be met by the citizen applicant. What evidence does/would a normal citizen have to show that the Mayor's office didn't act with due diligence? As I read it, only some heresay from a few newspaper articles. As for any other type of claim, what are your damages?

The internet, while a great resource for information and porn, is not a legal service nor does it have any legal education/experience.

Great questions.....

I have to scoot right now but I will try to answer quickly......due to the changes in civil courts where more and more people can't afford lawyers, the Judges are becoming more tolerant of people representing themselves and go to great lengths to help them along........

also, official law sites like CANLII help with research......

Recent "Mandamus" rulings even in the Hamilton area have shown that the Judiciary encourage citizens to take action in matter when necessary and urge them not to be afraid to try.'s worth exploring the idea I think.........

and if there are any actual lawyers out there?..........well, weigh in...... :wink: